An Answer to Stephen C. Jones.

Alexamenos Graffito (approx. 200 CE)

Stephen C. Jones has this idea in common with most Christians that the Romans had Jesus of Nazareth crucified on a simple two-beamed cross. I sent him the following in several installments last year. I should have put my response here on my blog instead and directed him to it.

Stephen, complicating matters is the fact that the ancient Roman Empire had two different types of crosses: a crux used for execution and a tropaeum, used for victory celebrations and other votive purposes. Guess which cross was simpler? The tropaeum, even though it was a two-beamed cross. (Minucius Felix, Octavian 29)

The standard Roman crux, on the other hand, had an attached 'horn' that impaled the prisoner through his anus, even if only when he hung in the "down" position. I have found to my satisfaction sufficient linguistic, archaeological, historical, patristic and even biblical evidence to back me up (although the biblical is actually slimmest). Since this is #2, I'll go with the Biblical for now and can give you more information subsequent to this post.

The insults.

The first piece of evidence is at the crucifixion itself, in the insults hurled at the King.

Matthew 27:40, KJV

And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest [it] in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross (κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ ταυροῦ)

Matthew 27:42, KJV

He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross (καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ), and we will believe him.

Mark 15:30, KJV

Save thyself, and come down from the cross (καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ).

Mark 15:32, KJV

Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross (καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦσταυροῦ), that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Now, in the Koine Greek the verb, shown for "come down" is καταβαίνω. Now, in the Scott-Liddell Greek-English Lexicon, if one were to replace "horse" (ἵππου), "carriage" (ἁρμαμάξης) or "chariot" (δίφρου or ἁρμάτων), the verb καταβαίνω means "to dismount."

It appears that Mark and Matthew recognize that a cross was something that was mounted.

The sons of Zebedee.

This is the scene where James and John, the Sons of Zebedee, ask Jesus to sit on either side of Him when He comes into His Kingdom. (They do not know what they're asking for!)

Mark 10:35-40, NIV

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Matthew 20:20-23, NIV

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

“What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

In the Liddell-Scott Lexicon, the Greek verb meaning "to sit" is καθίζω, to make to sit down, seat, to set, to place, to post watchers, guards, etc., to set up, to cause an assembly to take their seats, to put him into a certain condition, to take one's seat, to sit, to sit, recline at meals, to sit as judge, to reside, to settle, sink down, to run aground, be stranded, to take their seats, to settle, to alight, and to leave goods purchased.

In these passages it would obviously mean to take one's seat. But in relation to Roman crucifixion, it would mean to settle, sink down if no seat or "horn" was provided but also to sit if one were.

Guess for whom the two places were prepared:

Mark 15:27, KJV

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

Matthew 27:38

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Yep. The two thieves.

The mystery of the hyssop.

John 19:29, KJV

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put [it] upon hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth.

It turns out that what was called hyssop back then is called oregano, majoram and zatar today. All of the same genus and the same type of plant. At the time of Passover, it is herbaceous, scarcely 18" high and cannot possibly support a fully charged sponge.

There's an interesting fact about hyssopped vinegar. Back then, it was used to treat wounds and irritation to the anus. This has been noted by Bill Thayer of the University of Chicago in his comment on Pliny the Elder's Natural History, Book 23. (Note: for anus, Pliny used a euphemism: "seat.") Link

"This text of Pliny, however, provides evidence of something very different: hyssoped vinegar was apparently considered a very strong topical anaesthetic specific for rectal pain."

"In more intelligible detail, here is the connection with the Crucifixion:"

"Death in crucifixion (see this excellent page CenturyOne.org/Crucifixion) is ultimately caused by asphyxiation. The crucified man hangs from his wrists, and his chest is distended inwards and down. If a foot-rest is provided, this prolongs the torture, since the victim will be able to push himself up and get some air; but this induces cramps and eventually tetany of the arm and leg muscles, which become so painful that he eventually slumps down again — and the cycle continues to exhaustion and final asphyxiation in the down position."

"To this torture, the Romans commonly added a refinement: a sharp spike (called a sedile, a "seat") [Ed-M: or crux, believe it or not] was fixed on the upright beam in such a place that when the exhausted victim slips back down, it pierces the anus."

"Now read Pliny's text again. What the soldier was doing was not giving Jesus a drink of posca using hyssop as a support for the sponge. He was administering a pain-killer to a different place altogether, and the sponge, in accordance with our passage of Pliny, was being used as a swab. The writer of the gospel was standing too far away to see exactly what the soldier was doing and interpreted it wrongly; or some redactor has been prudish."

Granted, I am not wedded to this alternative version of John 19:29 and neither is Dr. Thayer, for in Against the Christians, Porphyry wrote of John 19:29: "Now there was a vessel full of vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel full of vinegar with a reed, they offered it to his mouth." (Fragment 15, Macarius, Apocriticus II:12.

Lifting the bodies off the crosses.

John 19:31

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.

The Greek for "on" is ἐπὶ. When used with the genitive and verbs of rest as it is here, means on or upon.

And the Greek for "take away" here is ἀρθῶσιν, aorist passive subjunctive 3rd person plural of αἴρω (ἀείρω), meaning to lift, to raise up; to take up, to mount up; to take up and carry or bring; to take up and bear;... to lift and take away or remove; to take away, to put an end to, to make away with, to destroy;... to be suspended, to hang; etc.

One of two things might be inferred here: (1) is that all the crosses were low enough to the ground that the bodies had to be lifted to be taken away (which messes with John 3:14), or (2) there was a "seat" such that one had to lift the body in order to clear the seat! Everywhere else in the NT, this verb means to lift up or to lift up from a horizontal surface and take away.

The crucifixion of Peter, since you mentioned it.

Porphyry doesn't believe Peter was crucified upside down and says so in Against the Christians. "And Peter again, who received authority to feed the lambs, was nailed to a cross and impaled on it. Fragment 36, Macarius, Apocriticus IV:4.

"Nailed to a cross and impaled on it," perhaps

like this unfortunate as depicted ca. 100 CE in the town of Puteoli,
now Pozzuoli, a suburb of Naples, Italy.

He included most of the first installment here, but the rest he included only snippets, and basically saying, "No, no, no, no, no!!!! Jesus was crucified on a two beam cross, and only that! And how could you snow under my comments box with all that!" All right, maximum mea culpa. But only on the last objection to the snow-in. Otherwise, an apology from me, for me, means losing face. Especially when I am 100% correct, as the Antenicene Church Fathers who describe the structure of the cross will show.

In his comment he quotes me:

Guess which cross the Church adopted in its crucifixes? You guessed it! The "tropaeum!"

And adds this gem:

The "Church" doesn't have "crucifixes", i.e. a cross with Jesus hanging on it. Only some denominations, mainly the Roman Catholic church does.

And as we shall see, the two-beamed Latin cross is amply attested by the evidence: Biblical, linguistic, historical, patristic and archaeological.

Where does he think the "Church" came from? The Roman Catholic Church itself believes that it is THE Church and all other derivations of Christianity are wayward brethren. And one should not forget that Constantine remodelled Christianity from a collection of sometimes-persecuted superstitious cults to a recognised state religion. He also basically organised an Empire-wide Church, and made it the only Imperially recognised branch of Christianity, with the other branches condemned as heretical. And from which Church did the Syrian Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox and Protestant churches come out of? You guessed it, the Roman Catholic Church, the one Church that Constantine organised in 325 CE.

And besides, before the Christian (or Catholic - Orthodox) crucifix, came The Cross. Specifically, the Laureate Cross, as shown here.

Sarcophagus Domatilla, ca. 350 CE.

Notice how it resembles the tropaeum, or simple two-beamed cross.

This is a tropaeum. Approx. 1st C. CE.
This is where the two-beamed cross originated from.
(Video link 1 and link 2.)

Now, would Romans crucify criminals on tropaea?!? Pagans themselves worshiped the cross even in the form of the tropaeum, because it was a symbol of victory and represented the rays of the sun. Even the Jews in Rome in at least one catacomb depicted the Second Temple in Jerusalem as a Roman Temple with a Tropaeum in front (video link). And why does The Cross not show up in epigraphy save as anchors (some of these were clearly depicted three-dimensional!) and staurograms in fragmented codices until after 325 CE when Constantine reorganised Christianity? Well the answer is obvious! And when the Antenicene Fathers defended their religion, they threw the charge of worshipping the cross right back onto the Pagans! Minucius Felix went so far as to deny entirely that the Christians worshipped the cross and a certain criminal affixed to it!

And then he says this about the Roman crux cross, or alternatively, the Priapus stake. This Stephen E Jones quotes me and adds yet another gem:

The standard Roman "crux," on the other hand, had an attached 'horn' that impaled the prisoner through his anus, even if only when he hung in the "down" position.

Disagree. No doubt the Romans did have such a variation, but there is no evidence (apart from the odd crackpot theologian trying to make a name for himself) that this was "The standard Roman "crux" or the type of cross Jesus died on.

Well I know some Antenicene Church Fathers who disagree with you, Mr. Jones! Antenicene Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian among others. It has to do with something called a σκόλοψ (skolops), chiefly a stake for palisading or impaling, then a thorn, and other pointed things.

Oh, yes. the "odd crackpot theologian" accusation. In other words, an ad hominem attack. Dr. Gunnar Samuelsson has done a lot of research into the original Greek and Latin writings and I have done the same thing, translating for myself from the Greek and Latin from reputable online sources, and having to learn the grammar and syntax of the Latin and the Greek. That Dr. Samuelsson is much more educated about Greek and latin than me, and that we have come to the same conclusions that the verbiages of the ancient writings are usually far too laconic and stingy in context to figure out the arrangement of crucifixion gear, speaks volumes. And it was not even Mr. Samuelsson who clued me in on this! It was the "odd crackpot philosopher" Seneca Minor, the "odd crackpot theologians" Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and origen, and the "odd crackpot modern classicist" Bill Thayer.

And the ugly reality was, the crux in the ancient Latin, even into the late First century CE, meant primarily, when the human suspension, torture, and execution aspects are taken out and the word is applied to everyday quotidian objects (and one very "sexual" object meant to deter thieves), a pole: i.e., something long and cylindrical.

Well I waited a long while and I sent him another post at this article, which he posted after some editing (additions - I don't remember any subtractions), here (and reproduced below in the following blockquotes).

It looks like you left off on your cross vs. torture stake articles. 

Yes, but not necessarily permanently. But I have been focusing most of my blogging on my The Shroud of Turin blog.

And after a year plus I had to dig up your latest article in this series. Sorry for the delay!

OK.

Excellent... no further comment here.

I would have wanted to see your selection of patristic evidence: I found out that at least some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers thought Jesus was crucified on a five-pointed cross with the fifth point used to *ahem* "crucify" in a most perverted manner (as the extant Pozzuoli and Vivat Crux graffiti show).

Yes. Others used the analogy of a ship's mast with its cross-yards.

Exactly! As indicated by Justin Martyr (Dialogus cum Tryphone 91) and Tertullian (Apologeticum 16.7, Ad Nationes 1.12.3-4, Adversus Iudaeos 10.2.7, Adversus Marcion 3.18.3f). But they, and Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus haereses 2.24.4), too, mention that there was an attachment about midway up the post.

I can quote Irenaeus here:

"Ipse habitus crucis fines et summitates habet quinque (The character of the cross itself has five ends and high points [plural]: duos in longitudine, duos in latitudine, et unum in medio (two lengthwise, two transversely and one in the centre), ubi requiescit qui clavis affigitur (on which [last point] finds rest the one who is affixed with nails)!" (Adversus haereses 2.24.4) (in Latin - pp. 183-4 of linked pdf)

The fifth extremity / second high point was probably necessary to give the executioner maximum freedom in nailing up the condemned, particularly if he used the nails and the transverse beam repeatedly over several crucifixions, not to mention the main upright. This is due to the mast-and-yard types introducing eccentricities into the hanged person, which would cause him to passively arc out like an archery bow. And in case of a cross with a single plane front surface, the suspended would flex out from the cross when they pushed up with their legs, at the very least. Nailing up to such a cross with an introduced eccentricity will also induce the above mentioned swaying.

Tertullian is in agreement with Irenaeus. But first we shill see how Tertullian ties the crux into the tropaeum, whose frame is a simple two-beamed cross.

"Pars crucis est omne robur, quod erecta statione defigitur (Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross); nos, si forte, integrum et totum deum colimus. (we render our adoration, if you will have it so**, to a god entire [uninjured] and complete). Diximus originem deorum vestrorum a plastis de cruci induci (We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross). Victorias adoratis, cum in tropaeis cruces intestina sint tropaeorum. (But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy)." (Apologeticum 16.7) (in Latin)

Tertullian knew a two-beamed cross and a tropaeum frame were one in the same. But he also said in this passage that the Christians of his day worshipped whole (or uninjured) and complete cruces: execution crosses! And male ones at that! Now what were the ones he saw like? He will tell you!

"Pars crucis, et quidem maior, est omne robur quod derecta statione defigitur (Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass). Sed nobis tota crux imputatur, cum antenna scilicet sua et cum illo sedilis excessu. (But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat***)." (Ad Nationes 1.12.3-4) (in Latin)

So, the execution cross, or crux, had as the bulk of its mass an upright pole pre-planted at the execution site. Add to this the patibulum, or antenna, and you have a two-beam mast-and-yard type cross. Four end points including one high point. So far, so good. Now we add the projecting seat or sedilis excessu. It appears in the Lewis And Short and Elementary Lewis lexica that excessu, under excedo when referring to inanimate objects, means "to go beyond, overstep, rise above, overtop [a certain boundary] and under excessus means "a standing out, projecting [beyond a certain limit], a departing from the subject, a digression, a deviation or aberration." So it certainly appears the projecting seat matches the fifth end point and second high point of Irenaeus' description. And we can confirm this in two other places.

"nam et in antenna navis quae crucis pars est (For even in a ship's yard, which is part of a cross), hoc extremitates eius vocantur---, (this is the name ['horns'] by which the extremities are called); unicornis autem medio stipite palus (while the central pole of the mast is a 'unicorn')." (Adversus Iudaeos 10.2.7) (in Latin)

Central pole of the mast??? A mast IS a pole, a.k.a., a spar. This translation makes no sense! Additionally, medio and stipite are in the ablative case, while palus is in the nominative. And it's the last word in the sentence; and by the rules of Latin, the last word is the most important. Plus, palus is not necessarily a tall pole but can also mean an upright pale and the very famous male member (palus obscaeno) of Priapus. So what we have here not the "central pole of the mast" but rather the "[obscene] pale at / from the middle of the pole."

"Nam et in antenna, quae crucis pars est, extremitates cornua vocantur (For of the antenna, which is a part of a cross, the ends are called 'horns'); unicornis autem medius stipitis palus (while the midway stake of the whole frame is the 'unicorn')." (Adversus Marcionem 3.18.4) (in Latin)

The phrase "midway stake of the whole frame" is not as bad but it's kind of erroneous, although linguistically correct, because people will still think the main upright for "midway stake". Note here that medius and palus are in the nominative case, and stipitis is the genitive of stipes. And stipes was not always referring to the whole frame of the cross. Indeed, its basic definition is "log, stock, post, trunk, stake", i.e., the main stem of an execution cross. So what we probably have here in the phrase medius stipitis palus is: "the midway stake of the main upright".

So Tertullian confirms what Irenaeus said about the architecture of the execution cross and the purpose of its central point.

Now I will also quote Justin Martyr to reveal the operation of this central attachment:

"And that one which is fixed in the middle is a horn and projects up and out, upon which would be [or are] mounted those who are crucified (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐποχοῦνται οἱ σταυρούμενοι [eph' ô epochountai oi stauroumenoi])." (Dialougus cum Tryphone 91) (in Greek - pp. of linked pdf)

Now ἐποχοῦνται is the misspelled 3rd person plural present indicative (or subjunctive) middle/passive of ἐποχέομαι [epocheomai] (be carried by, ride upon) / ἐποχεύω [epocheuô] (spring upon, cover, [a certain action] of the male animal) - and I figured out that these two verbs are the middle/passive and active conjugations of the same verb! And σταυρούμενοι is the 3rd person plural middle plural verb-participle of σταυρόω [stauroô] "fence with pales, drive timber piles*, impale*, crucify." Which means not only are they passively crucified with nails, they are also actively crucifying themselves. How? By "pile-driving" themselves as shown in the Pozzuoli image above.

Hermann Fulda (Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, p. 112, pgh. 158) noted that the cross could have been described in the language of the street of the Roman Empire as the carnifex κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (meaning executioner par excellence, or alternatively and most explicitly, hangman down upon the prominence) 

And these Church Fathers were saying Jesus Christ was crucified in this manner. Where did they get their information from? I wager from the ugly reality they witnessed. For what the Romans did was, they combined all the suspension tortures of the peoples they conquered and combined them into a brutal parody of a union of two males for the express purpose of humiliation and torture. Quite an effective deterrent, I might add.

BTW the so-called "crackpot theologian" Gunnar Samuelsson is 100% correct but his work was misrepresented by the sensationalist press (nothing new).

I disagree that he is "100% correct" in his reported claim that "Jesus did not die on [a] cross." He is 100% IN-correct"!

Except he never did claim that Jesus did not die on the cross. He only said that the Gospel narratives do not have the language necessary to support the traditional interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion of being nailed to a two-beam or a post-and-beam cross, either without an upright thorn-like peg, or with one, as I have shown above.

You can read for yourself, at Dr. Samuelsson's website which supports his book and explains exactly what he set out to do and what his conclusions were.

He still believes Jesus was crucified on a cross but the NT verbiage cannot support it for some reason,

I disagree with the latter.

In Gunnar Samuelsson's own words:

Q: What is your personal understanding of what happened on Calvary? 

A: Here, I have as much to say as everyone that reads the Bible. I think that my personal beliefs cohere well with those of most Christians. I believe that Jesus was forced to carry a part or the whole execution device toward Calvary, I believe that he was executed by being nailed (nails implied outside the passion narratives, e.g., John 20.25–27) to it. I believe also that Jesus rose from the death on the third day, that he at this very moment is with the Father and that he will return in glory to judge the living and dead.

I have in my research nothing to say about the historical or theological side of the salvation of man. As a scholar who deals with philology my interest is ancient text, and the ancient texts usually do not depict in detail executions such as the one Jesus was subjected to. This is also the case in the Gospels. They do not describe the event in length. This is my only point. The non-detailed accounts of the Gospels do not, however, contradict the traditional understanding. So the traditional understanding of the death of Jesus is correct, but we could acknowledge that it is more based on the eyewitness accounts than the actual passion narratives.

So he does believe that Jesus was nailed on a two-beam cross after all.

The Gk. word stauros (like most words) is ambiguous. It can mean a single upright stake, or a two-beamed cross. But as I pointed out in my "Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake! #2: Biblical," the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was executed on a two-beamed cross and not a single beamed stake:

Okay, I'm going to explain why what you think is so, Mr. Jones, is just ain't so. Or rather, just ain't supported by the original Greek verbiage! Once one clears one's head of traditional imagery (nailed to a tropaeum), the verbiage says something else entirely. Particularly in the gospel narratives which most New Testament scholars at universities no longer view as eyewitness accounts, and treated each one as its own individual narrative that does not necessarily complement the others but could contradict them. The paradigm of the NT scholars is that the first three gospels are synoptic, with Mark being the oldest written, and Matthew and Luke heavilly dependent upon Mark, but contradicting Mark in places, sometimes stridently so. John has its own view, yet again, there are indications within that the writer was reacting to Mark's gospel. When one treats each gospel as its own narrative, he is unsure what exactly he finds for the gear of Jesus' execution. Treat them as complimentary and collect all the relevant passages, and a two-beam T-cross with an upright thorn-like peg to obscenely seat the condemned is the result.

1. According to Mt 27:37 NWT, the charge against Jesus was posted "above his HEAD" not "above his HANDS" as it would be if Jesus was executed on a single upright stake.

Except if Jesus was executed on a single upright stake, with his arms bound or nailed to the stake in such a manner so as not be extended above his head, the location of the sign above his head would still be correct. It is also correct where the single upright stake is a Vlad Tepes torture stake with the sign on a separate pole.

2. According to Jn 20:25 NWT, Jesus had the "print of the NAILS" (plural) in His hands. Not ONE NAIL as the Watchtower has consistently depicted Jesus affixed to a single-beamed stake.

Again, one could have been nailed onto an ordinary upright post with both hands separate. Hermann Fulda has an illustrated example in his work, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung.

3. Jesus predicted the "sort of death" that Peter would die would be by him having to "stretch out" (Gk. ekteino) his hands (Jn 21:17-19 NWT). The Gk. word means stretch out sideways, not up.

Unfortunately, ἐκτείνω (ekteinô) does not necessarily mean, extend out to the sides. That word primarily means "stretch out" without regard to the direction of stretching. The prediction would be fulfilled even if Peter's arms were stretched out in front with his wrists bound to a rope leash, with the lead extending to and cinched around his waist. After all, everywhere else in the New Testament ἐκτείνω (ekteinô) is frequently translated in the KJV as "stretch forth". And note Jesus did not say, "Someone else will put a beam on you".

4. Jesus could not have walked to Golgotha "bearing the torture stake for himself" (Jn 19:17 NWT).

It will work with a "torture stake" 11'-8" (3.6 m) in length and 6" (15 cm) in diameter. Weight using Jerusalem Pine would be about 75 pounds (33 kg).  It's been done before and since.

But bearing an immense Jehovah's Witnesses' torture-stake or even worse, a fully assembled cross or tropaeum like in Mel Gibson's Passion, is the apparent gist of the modern understanding of the narrative when you call the patibulum a pole (σταυρός). When you translate it back into the Latin, you could end up with the word crux. Which is what Jerome did in the Latin Vulgate.

Samuelsson's Ph.D dissertation committee should have failed him, for ignoring such clear evidence against his thesis.

Dr. Samuelsson is not the first one to say that the language of the New Testament fails to adequately conjure a depiction of the traditional depiction of the Crucifixion on a two-beam cross. Dr. Samuelsson cites Raymond E. Brown here:

Q: What then is the problem of the texts?

A: The problem is that the texts of the sole event, the passion narratives, are not that detailed as at least I thought they were. As a matter of fact, this observation is not new. Raymon E. Brown describes this feature in his famous Death of the Messiah.

We now come to the centerpiece of passion, the crucifixion itself, more often portrayed in art than any other scene in history – with great variation in the shape and position of the crosses, in how Jesus is affixed to the cross, in how he is clothed, in his expressions of anguish, etc. Yet in all comparable literature, has so crucial a moment ever been phrased so briefly and uninformatively? (...) Not a word is reported about the form of the cross, about how he was affixed, about the amount of pain (Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2.945).

So Brown identifies the problem, the uninformativeness of the passion narratives, but from my point of view he does not draw sufficient conclusions from his observations, since he still in great detail describes both the punishment of crucifixion in general and the crucifixion of Jesus in particular.

And Dr. Samuelsson's conclusion is that the language of the New Testament is indeed inadequate for a two-beam cross which is from Church Tradition outside of the New Testament, which, as I have shown above, evolved from a sort of Priapus stake (with crossarm) to a tropaeum.

unless the NT was the first time staur-ow was used to mean crucify and not impale on top of a pointed stake.

It wasn't. There are plenty of examples in pre-NT history where stauros can only mean a two-beamed cross. See Leolaia, "The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the `torture stake'," Jehovahs-Witness.Net, June 11, 2005.

I have already read her paper. That was basically my starting point. From there I started looking up the quotes of her ancient sources online and started comparing the text to what is there in English. Martin Hengel's Crucifixion was a great help in identifying ancient text references. And I found out that the verbiages in the ancient languages most certainly did not conform to the limited English definition of "crucify" (nail to a flat plane cross). Instead there was an immense variety of different suspension punishments, the worst and most frequent in the ancient world (including Carthage) being impalement. I have also read David W. Chapman's Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, noting he had come to the same conclusions I had, although he still used the English word "crucify" to connote penal bodily suspensions.

Well, Samuelsson's theory in interpreting the ancient language is minimalist. Mine is evolutionist. In this case, penal bodily suspensions evolved over time, especially under the Romans who did develop a crossarmed, monohorned execution pole called a crux, their gold standard of executionary suspension devices, as opposed to their votive cross, the tropaeum. Even so, one must use this approach with two questions in mind:

1. What is actually being said in the passage?
2. What is the passage's author's understanding of executionary bodily suspension?
3. How  does extant epigraphy inform what is being said in the passages and what is understood by their authors?

And usually it is better to err on the side of caution: i.e., interpret what is being said minimally, with a keen awareness that eventually one will run into Roman suspension-executions, and not to allow onesself to be blinded by tradition. Otherwise you may end up depicting Persians nailing people to votive crosses. Bah!

And yes, I agree with you that Jesus was NOT impaled on such nor nailed to a simple post!

Great!

Indeed. Thanks!

Many modern `theologians' (so-called) like Samuelsson are mere careerists, working in theologial departments of secular universities (e.g. the "University of Gothenburg"), whose dominant philosophy is Naturalism ("nature is all there is-there is no supernatural"). They publish controversial works so that they get noticed and can be employed at such naturalistic theological departments.

They (including Samuelsson) will have to give account to Jesus (Mt 16:27; 2Cor 5:10; Acts 10:41-42; Rev 20:12, Rev 22:12) for such falsehoods they have written in the name of Christ and the support they have given to anti-Christian cults like the JWs.

Another ad hominem attack we can certainly do without.

And what you call "Naturalism" is actually the scientific method: make observations and come up with a hypothesis based on those observations, then test the hypothesis. If it stands, you have a new theory and have enlarged knowledge. It's much more reliable than depending on "revelation". It's how we have acquired an immense volume of knowledge. If humanity hadn't embraced it, we would all still be stuck in the Middle Ages. It's as simple as that.

And that last paragraph? No comment.







* I had to figure these two out by context ("drive timber piles" in Diodorus Siculus 24.1 and Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War 7.25.5-7; and "impale" in Diodorus Siculus 16.61.2 because you can't crucify a dismembered corpse).
** lit.: "as luck would have it."
*** lit.: "a projection, rising above and/or transgression of a seat."

ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Next, I'll present a survey of everything I found concerning the Greek verb σταυρόω (without the preverb ἀνά) and after that look at what the gospels say about the gear of Jesus' execution.

Here are links to the previous articles on ancient penal bodily suspension in case anyone is interested:

The Romans Never Crucified the Way We Think series:

Part 14E - Impalements in Antiquity (4E).
Part 14D - Impalements in Antiquity (4D).
Part 14C - Impalements in Antiquity (4C).
Part 14B - Impalements in Antiquity (4B).
Part 14A - Impalements in Antiquity (4A).
Part 13B - Impalements in Antiquity (3B).
Part 13A - Impalements in Antiquity (3A).
Part 11 - Impalements in Antiquity (2).
Part 11 - Impalements in Antiquity (1).
Part 10 - Humiliations.
Part 9 - Utility Poles and Masts.
Part 8 - Crown of Thorns.
Part 7 - Crucifixion and Priapus.
Part 6 - From Wax Image to Exposed Body.
Part 5 - The First Crucifix.
Part 4 - The Tropaeum and the Furca.
Part 3 - Crux - Modern English Use and Ancient Quotidian Meanings.
Part 2 - Crux.
Part 1.

Crucifixion – The Bodily Support series


Part 4 - Physics of Crucifixion.
Part 3 - Manuscript Evidence.
Part 2 - Archaeological Evidence.
Part 1.

Impalements in Antiquity (4E)

WARNING!: This post may be upsetting to some.

Part 14E of the series: "The Romans NEVER CRUCIFIED the Way We Think They Did!" (Cont'd) UPDATED 11-12-2012

Previous in this series:

Part 14D Impalements in Antiquity (4D).

Part 14C Impalements in Antiquity (4C).
Part 14B Impalements in Antiquity (4B).
Part 14A Impalements in Antiquity (4A).
Part 13B Impalements in Antiquity (3B).
Part 13A Impalements in Antiquity (3A).
Part 12 Impalements in Antiquity (2).
Part 11 Impalements in Antiquity (1).
Part 10 Humiliations.
Part 9 Utility Poles and Masts.
Part 8 Crown of Thorns.
Part 7 Crucifixion and Priapus.
Part 6 From Wax Image to Exposed Body.
Part 5 The First Crucifix.
Part 4 The Tropaeum and the Furca.
Part 3 Crux - Modern English Use and Ancient Quotidian Meanings.
Part 2 Crux.
Part 1.

Previous Series - Crucifixion – The Bodily Support:

Part 4 Physics of Crucifixion.
Part 3 Manuscript Evidence.
Part 2 Archaeological Evidence. UPDATED
Part 1.

Part 14E - Impalements in Antiquity (4E) - Media and Persia.

A. Recap.

As I guided you through the previous four installments we looked at the Persian Source itself (an immense writing of an insane height called the Behistun Inscription) where the basic meaning of the Persian and Old Babylonian was "I raised him / them aloft on the wood". Now this verb was initially translated as "I crucified him/them" but later on was interpreted to mean "impaled". Then we looked at Greek and Greek-language Roman sources, starting with Herodotus (484 - 425 BCE) and ending with Plutarch (45 - 120 CE) with one source per incident and we find that the the writers most likely meant impalement when they spoke of culprits, prisoners of war and innocent victims being anastaurow-ed or anapêgnumi-ed. And finally in the last part, which was a case study of the death of Polycrates at the hand of the Persian satrap Oroetes / Orontes under Darius the Great, we found that the manner of death was likely impalement, although the writers from the First Century on could have been projecting Roman crucifixion (nailing to and impaling on a thrie-beamed, monohorned Priapean gallows, or crux), just as modern scholars, particularly those of the Christian mindset project the Christian idea of Roman crucifixion on a two-beam cross, or tropaeum. Now I will show you the various Jewish sources indicate that what the Persians did was not crucifixion at all, but impalement.

B. Jewish Sources.

I think the best method to show this is to go by incident, and contrast the various sources with one another to get an idea what the ancient authors were saying.

B.1. Edict of Cyrus and Darius.

This incident relates to the reconstruction of the House of god, burnt down in 585 BCE by the Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) Empire under King Nebuchadnezzar. Now in Ezra 6, King Darius the great (521 BCE) is orders his scribes to look for a previous order made by Cyrus the Great (538 BCE). A scroll is found, and is brought back to Darius. According to Ezra 6, it read as follows:

Memorandum:

3 In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem:

Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide, 4 with three courses of large stones and one of timbers. The costs are to be paid by the royal treasury. 5 Also, the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, are to be returned to their places in the temple in Jerusalem; they are to be deposited in the house of God.

6 Now then, Tattenai, governor of Trans-Euphrates, and Shethar-Bozenai and you, their fellow officials of that province, stay away from there. 7 Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site.

8 Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:

The expenses of these men are to be fully paid out of the royal treasury, from the revenues of Trans-Euphrates, so that the work will not stop. 9 Whatever is needed—young bulls, rams, male lambs for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, and wheat, salt, wine and oil, as requested by the priests in Jerusalem—must be given them daily without fail, 10 so that they may offer sacrifices pleasing to the God of heaven and pray for the well-being of the king and his sons.

11 Furthermore, I decree that if anyone changes this edict, a beam is to be pulled from his house and he is to be lifted up and impaled on it. And for this crime his house is to be made a pile of rubble. 12 May God, who has caused his Name to dwell there, overthrow any king or people who lifts a hand to change this decree or to destroy this temple in Jerusalem.

I Darius have decreed it. Let it be carried out with diligence.

Ezra 6:3-11 NIV [1]

Now if you look at different versions of Ezra 6:11 in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, you will find that there are many different interpretations for the Hebrew / Aramaic word that is translated above as "impaled". The various interpretations of the Christian Old Testament is a veritable confusion, they do not agree if it is the person to be lifted up or the beam that is dragged out his house, or they skip the raising part completely. And the verb that is translated as "impaled" in the NIV is interpreted alternately as "hanged", "fastened",  "tied to it and flogged", "fixed to it", "nailed to it", and "smitten on it". [2] The different interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, are not necessarily contradictory, but could very well be complimentary. The 1917 JPS Tanakh has "let him be lifted up and fastened thereon" and the 1985 JPS Tanakh has "he shall be impaled on it". [3][4] Now the two Jewish interpretations and most of the Christian interpretations, except "tied to it and flogged on it" can be interpreted as complimentary. Even "nailed to it" can be seen as complimentary to "impaled on it" if one thinks of the impaling stake as one enormous tree-nail. Ouch!

Now the original Hebrew for all this different verbiage is וזקיף יתמחא עלהי (ū·zə·qîp̄ yiṯ·mə·ḥê ‘ă·lō·w·hî) "and, lifted up, he be hanged / smitten upon it / on account of it". [5][6] This looks fairly much that this is referring to impalement. And although David W. Chapman in Ancient Jewish and Christian Perspectives did not look at the word יתמחא (yiṯ·mə·ḥê) "let him be hanged / smitten" he did analyse the word וזקיף (ū·zə·qîp̄ and determines that it is related to Roman crucifixion (the word is used in Syriac for "crucified") and is also related to the ancient Assyrian words zaqapu and zaqipu, which includs the impaling of a person in their more basic meanings of erecting, planting, or lifting up any person or thing. [7][8]. Two points of interest: cognates of וזקיף (ū·zə·qîp̄) is noted in the Babylonian Talmud b. B. Mes. 59b ("if there is a case of hanging in a family record") that there is a double entendre with crucifixion and the suspension, i.e., spearing, of a fish on spits. Also in the Targum I Chron. 10:10, the item hanged is Saul's impaled head: זקפו על זיקפא (zeqaphu al ze-iqapha) "and impaled on the pale". [7][9][10]

The Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate of Ezra 6:11 gives us more information in case one is still not yet clear on the subject of Persian penal bodily suspension. The Septuagint has the following Greek: καὶ ὠρθωμένος παγήσεται ἐπ' αὐτοῦ "and having been set upright he shall be impaled on of it". [11][12][13] Followed by the Latin Vulgate: et erigatur et configatur in eo "and he shall be raised up and subjoined on / fastened together with / pierced through by it" (the infamous combination locative-instrumental ablative again!) [14] 

This edict is cited in Josephus' Antiquities twice. First when Cyrus initially issues the proclaims it in 538 BCE:

But my will is, that those who disobey these injunctions, and make them void, shall be hung on a cross, and their substance brought into the king's treasury.

Josephus Antiquities, 11,1,3 = 11,117 fin. [15]

And the second time in 521 BCE when Darius had the edict searched, and reissues the proclamation when the edict is read to him:

And that for such as transgressed any of the orders thus sold to them, he [Cyrus] commanded that they should be caught, and hung on a cross, and their substance confiscated to the king's use.

Josephus Antiquities, 11,4,6 = 11,103 [16]

But for the Greek translated as "he shall / should be hung on a cross" we have ἀνασταυρωθῆναι (anastaurôthênai), "[him] to have been impaled" [17], for, as we have already seen in the LSJ and Middle Liddell lexica, the verb ἀνασταυρόω (anastauroô) back in the era this edict was promulgated did not mean "crucify" at all!; it strictly meant "impale". Of course it did later on come to mean "crucify" in the Roman fashion also, and this fact of the added meaning does open up the can of worms that Josephus may have been projecting Roman crucifixion practices back into Persian times, which predated even Herodotus! Even so, the way the Romans did it, still basically conformed to the intent of the original Aramaic of Ezra of elevation, hanging, fixing, striking / nailing, impaling, and smiting [18]. The erroneous Christian concept of Roman crucifixion by simply nailing to a tropaeum? Fat chance.

B.2. Haman's Pale of an Insane Height.

B.2.1. The Setting and Set-up.

The setting of the story is in the reign of Ahasuerus (either Xerxes I of Persia 486-465 BCE or Artaxerxes 405/4-359/8 BCE). The reigns are roughly contemporary to the life of Herodotus (484-425 BCE). There is an incident with his first wife and he sends her away for no good reason, then looks for a new wife, finally wedding the protagonist, Esther, in the twelfth month of the seventh year of his reign (Josephus Antiquities 11,6,3 = 11,203). About year or so after two of the king's eunuchs engaged in a conspiracy to assasinate him. Josephus writes:

207 Sometime after this [two eunuchs], Bigthan and Teresh, plotted against the king and Barnabazus, the servant of one of the eunuchs, being by birth a Jew, was acquainted with their conspiracy, and discovered it to the queen's uncle, and Mordechai, by means of Esther, made the conspirators known to the king. 208 This troubled the king: but he discovered the truth, and hanged the eunuchs upon a cross, while at the time he gave no reward to Mordechai, who had been the occasion of his preservation.

Josephus Antiquities 11,6,4 = 11,207-8a [19]

What William Whiston translated as "and hanged the Eunuchs upon a cross" is καὶ τοὺς μὲν εὐνούχους ἀνεσταύρωσεν: properly, "and impaled the eunuchs". [20] Now we know that Josephus lived in the Roman Imperial era, and could very well have, like Philo, projected Roman crucifixion back to earlier times, but we ought not assume that -- Josephus could very well mean impaled. After all, before he was captured by the Romans he was a prominent citizen in Judea and was even procurator of Galilee and late in life made a spirited defence of Judaism called Against Apion. So undoubtedly he was familiar with the whole Tanakh and perhaps some of the Qumran Scrolls as well, obviously including Esther in its original late Hebrew.

So, then, we can easily see what the Tanakh has to say, both in Hebrew and in Greek, and how it was translated into the Latin Vulgate.

The matter was investigated and found to be so, and the two were impaled on stakes. This was recorded in the book of Annals in the presence of the king.

The Tanakh, Esther 2:23 [21]

What is translated here as "impaled on stakes" and in Christian versions variously as "hanged on a gallows", hanged on a tree", "hung on a pole", "hanged on a gibbet", etc., is in the Hebrew, ויתלו על עץ (wa·yit·tā·lū 'al 'etz) "hanged upon a pole". [22][23] According to David W Chapman, the method of hanging that was most likely impalement, noting that it was a longstanding penalty in the Ancient Near East. [24] The Septuagint is similar to the Hebrew text, it has καὶ ἐκρέμασεν αὐτούς "and he hanged them". [25][26] The Latin Vulgate, on the other hand, uses verbiage consistent with crucifixion or hanging in a Roman fork-shaped gibbet but could be indicative of using a lifting beam to impale on a stake of an insane height: et adpensus uterque eorum in patibulo "and hanged up each of the two of them on/by a patibulum". [27][28]

B.2.2 Haman Launches a Pogrom and Hatches a Plot.

The backstory: Ahasuerus promotes Haman to the position of chief minister. All the king's courtiers were ordered to kneel and bow down to pay respect to Haman and his office. Mordechai, Esther's uncle, would not kneel and bow down. For some reason, this fills Haman with rage. Finding out he was Jewish and that Jews did not bow down to any personage except Yahweh, Haman manages to prejudice the king against the Jews and authorise a pogrom -- a shoah or holocaust -- against them.

A few days later haman meets Mordechai again in the palace courtyard and Mordechai still did not stir himself or rise in his presence. Again, Haman is furious and goes home. And here is what happens next:

Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Let a stake be put up, fifty cubits high, and in the morning ask the king to have Mordechai impaled on it. Then you can go gaily to the king to the feast." The proposal pleased haman, and he had the stake put up.

The Tanakh, Esther 5:14 [29][30]

The Hebrew for "let a stake be put up" is יעשו עץ (ya·‘ă·śū 'etz) "let a stake be made" [31] and "to have Mordechai impaled on it" is ויתלו את מרדכי עליו (wə·yiṯ·lū ’êṯ mā·rə·do·ḵay ‘ā·lāw) "to have Mordechai hanged on top of it." [32] The last phrase, "he had the stake set up" have in the Hebrew ויעש העץ (way·ya·‘aś hā·‘êtz) the exact same basic words, just different conjugates. [31] This language for "to have Mordechai hanged on top of it" is similar to the language in Deuteronomy 21;22-23:  תָּלָה עַל עץ (talah 'al- 'etz) "impale on a stake".

In the Septuagint [33] we have for the phrase "let a stake be put up", κοπήτω σοι ξύλον "one should fell for you a tree" [34], for "to have Mordechai impaled on it" κρεμασθήτω μαρδοχαῖος ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου "Mordechai shuld be hanged upon the tree/stake" [35] and "he had the stake set up" ἡτοιμάσθη τὸ ξύλον "the tree should have been prepared". [36] Basically, the sense of the Sepyuaging is that a tree is to be felled, i.e., chopped down, and prepared for Mordechai to be hanged on it. The phrase κρεμασθήτω ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου is essentially a literal translation of תָּלָה עַל עץ (talah 'al- 'etz).

In the Latin Vulgate "let a stake be put up" is iube parari excelsam trabem, "order to be prepared a raised stake" [37]; "to have Mordechai impaled on it" is ut adpendatur super eam Mardocheus, "so that may be suspended on top of it Mordechai" [38]; and "he had the stake set up" is iussit excelsam parari crucem, "he ordered to be prepared a raised crux" (cross or impale stake) [39].

In Josephus, we have essentially the same verbiage, although he does utitlize  ἀνασταυρόω (anastauroô), "impale, crucify (by the Romans)". [17] He reports:

246 "...yet," said he [Haman], "am I not pleased to see Mordechai, the Jew, in the court." Hereupon his wife Zeresh advised him to give orders that a gallows should be made sixty cubits high, and that in the morning he should ask the king that Mordechai might be hanged thereon. So he commended her advice, and gave order to his servants to prepare the gallows, and to place it in the court, for the punishment of Mordechai thereon, 247 which was accordingly prepared.

Josephus, Antiquities 11,6,10 = 11,246-7 [40]

Now the word used for "gallows" is ξύλον (xulon), which, as we have seen, corresponds to the Latin trabem and crucem, and the Hebrew עֵץ ('etz), i.e., it is a tree or an impaling stake, considering the date of the incident. In the same passage Josephus uses a conjugate of κόπτω (koptô), κοπῆναι (kopênai), "to cut down, strike, knock, smite, hammer, (in the case of trees) cut down." So here is the clear case of orders for a 60-cubit (30-meter or 90-foot) [41] tall tree (note in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles the height is only 50 cubits - 25 meters = 75 feet) to be chopped down for the execution of Mordechai. Then in the morning Haman is to ask the king to have Mordechai impaled: ἀνασταυρωσαι (anastaurôsai), "to impale" [17]. May I remind you again that that is the meaning of the verb back in the days when Herodotus wrote! It also corrsesponds to the Latin Vulgate ut adpendatur super eam "so that he may be suspended on top of it" and the Septuagint κρεμασθήτω ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου "hang upon the stake". Josephus' Greek for "to prepare the gallows, and to place it in the court" has ξύλον ἑτοιμασαμένους στῆσαι τοῦτο "having prepared the stake, to cause this thing to stand" (i.e., plant it). The Targum Sheni (Tg. Esther II 5:14) employs  צלב (tzaluv) "hang, impale" [62] as the intended mode of execution, because Haman's wife is reported that Jewish figures in Biblical "history" have managed to escape all other modes of execution. [23a]

So when Chapman expressed his informed opinion that the sort of "crucifixion" that Haman intends to inflict upon Mordechai was to be an impalement [24], and in my opinion the Hebrew Tanakh, Septuagint, Latin Vulgate and Josephus' Antiquities adequately convey the sense that the method of penal bodily suspension was impalement.

B.2.3. Haman Goes in to See the King.

Now in Esther chapter 6 the scene opens with the King's courtiers discussing the King about what is to be done with Mordechai to honour him, for they just recovered the record where Mordechai had exposed the plot by two of the King's eunuchs had conspired to asassinate him. And at that moment... "Haman had entered the outer court about having Mordechai impaled on the stake he had prepared for him." (The Tanakh, Esther 6:4b)[42] The phrase, "impaled on the stake" is, in the Hebrew, לתלות את־מרדכי על־העץ (liṯ·lō·wṯ ’êṯ mā·rə·do·ḵay ‘al- hā·‘êṣ): "about hanging that one Mordechai upon the 'etz (impaling stake)", in the Septuagint: κρεμάσαι τὸν μαρδοχαῖον ἐπὶ τῷ ξύλῳ (kremasai ton Mardochaion epi tô  xulô)"to hang up the Mordechai upon the stake"; and in the Latin Vulgate iuberet mardocheum adfigi patibulo "he might order Mordechai to be affixed to/by a patibulum." Now the Hebrew and the Septuagint are essentially in agreement, but the Latin Vulgate, written by Jerome in 390 CE, is an outlier! For he has Haman preparing either a fork-shaped gibbet, or a two-beam cross or TROPAEUM (the Roman standard crux, or Priapus stake, had fallen into gross disuse by this time), neither of which the Persians as far as we know were familiar with. The word patibulo, is both dative and ablative for patibulum. of course, in Roman times, the patibulum was the transverse beam of the thrie-beamed, monohorned crux or Priapus stake. Since the persians probably never heard of the last -- it looks very much like a Roman invention -- we can interpret the obviously erroneous Vulgate to mean transverse beam, or lifting beam, in the ablative: i.e., iuberet mardocheum adfigi patibulo can be reinterpreted as "he might order Mordechai affixed [on top of an impaling stake] with a patibulum. Besides, to impale someone on a pre-erected stake 25 meters or 75 feet tall, a lifting beam most assuredly would be required.

And an impalement using a patibulum would look exactly like this but with additional end-support poles in real life:

And just like Sandoces, the condemned prior to being impaled would be lifted just like this:

Source: PHDiva

This is the depiction of the preliminary lifting stage of a Carthaginian "crucifixion". It was found in an Esquiline tomb and dated to about 250 BCE or so. Note that in the fresco painting of the man tied tightly to the overhead beam, there is not any main upright of any cross behind him. Clearly, the man depicted is on his way up, to be suspended from the patibulum spanning two posts and to be... impaled.

B.2.4. The Stake is Observed by Others.

^"While they were still speaking with him, the king’s eunuchs arrived and hurriedly brought Haman to the banquet which Esther had prepared." (The Tanakh, Esther 6:14 [42])

Josephus adds to this, which is not written but is implied in the text of the Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament.

260 Now while these men were thus talking to one another, Esther's eunuchs hastened haman to come to supper. 261 But one [of] the eunuchs named Sabuchadas, saw the gallows that was fixed in Haman's house, and inquired of the servants for what purpose they had prepared it. So he knew it was for the queen's uncle [Mordechai] because Haman was about to petition the King that he might be punished, but at present he held his peace.

Josephus Antiquities 11,6,11 = 11,260-1 [43]

What William Whiston translates as "gallows' Josephus writes down as σταυρόν (stauron), accusative for σταυρός (stauros), "upright pale, cross". And the σταυρός is "fixed" at Haman's house - the Greek verb is πεπηγότα (pepêgota), "planted or fixed firmly in the earth, built or constructed".

B.2.5. The King Finds Out and Guess What Happens to Haman!

In Esther 7, Haman arrives at the banquet that is thrown for Esther, and Esther complains about the planned shoah against her own people, the Jews. The King Ahasuerus asks Esther just who is the engineer of this conspiracy (as if he didn't approve of it before!) and Esther replies that it was none other than the King's prime minister, Haman! At which point the King storms out in anger and confusion. In the King's absence, Haman throws himself onto Esther's couch, begging for his life. Of course, King Ahasuerus comes back in and sees Haman there. “DOES HE MEAN,” he shouts, “TO RAVISH THE QUEEN IN MY OWN PALACE?” And no sooner than the words escape his lips than Haman was seized and his head covered. And then:

⁹Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “What is more, a stake is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high, which Haman made for Mordecai—the man whose words saved the king.” “Impale him on it!” the king ordered. ¹⁰So they impaled Haman on the stake which he had put up for Mordecai, and the king’s fury abated.

The Tanakh, Esther 7:9-10 [44]

The extant Hebrew [45] has for "a stake", העץ (hā·‘êṣ), "tree, stake, gallows, etc."; for "Impale him on it!", תלהו עליו (tə·lu·hū ‘ā·lāw), "hang [him] over / on / upon [it]"; and for "So they impaled Haman on the stake",  ויתלו את המן על העץ (way·yiṯ·lū ’êṯ hā·mān ‘al- hā·‘êṣ), "they hanged that one, Haman, upon the 'etz (stake)" And since it was a pre-erected stake with an insane height of at least 25 meters = 75 feet, they must have used a patibulum to lift him up!

The Septuagint of these verses [46] has for "a stake", ξυλον (xulon), "tree, stake, gallows, etc."; for "Impale him on it", σταυρωθήτω ἐπ' αὐτοῦ (staurôthêtô ep' autou), "he shall be 'paled' upon it" [47]; and for "So they impaled Haman on the stake", καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη αμαν ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου (kai ekremasthê Aman epi tou xulou), "and they hanged Haman upon the stake".

In the Vulgate [48] we read for "a stake", lignum, "wood, tree, timber, staff"; for "Impale him on it", adpendite eum in eo "hang / suspend / weigh him on it"; and for "So they impaled Haman on the stake", suspensus est itaque Aman in patibulo "And so Haman was suspended on a gibbet / by an overhead lifting beam", mindful of what could have been Jerome's intent of locational ablative "on a gibbet" and a possible alternative instrumental ablative "by an overhead lifting beam". Of course, each ablative case here works hand-in-hand with the other so we also have "by a gibbet" and "on an overhead lifting beam". The gibbet, of course, hints at a crucifixion or a hanging in a fork-shaped gibbet whereas my suggested alternative is the possible solution for impaling someone on a pre-erected stake of an insane height of 25 meters = 75 feet.

And Josephus says something similar to Jerome:

266 Sabuchadas the eunuch came in and accused Haman, and said, "He found a gallows at his house, prepared for Mordechai; for that the servant told him so much on his inquiry, when he was sent to call him to supper." He said further, that the gallows was fifty cubits high: 267 which, when the king heard, he determined that Haman should be punished after no other manner that which had been devised had been devised against Mordechai; so he gave order immediately that he should hang upon those gallows, and be put to death after that manner.

Josephus Antiquities 11,6,11 = 11,266-7 [49]

Now in this instance what William Whiston interpreted as "gallows" was recorded by Josephus as σταυρός (accusative σταυρόν in line 266 and genitive σταύρου in line 267), "upright pale, pole, cross". Now the Greek for Whiston's "he should hang upon those gallows, and be put to death after that manner" is rendered in the extant Greek as καὶ κελεύει παραχρῆμα αὐτὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ σταυροῦ κρεμασθέντα ἀποθανεῖν (kai keleuei parachrêma ek ekeinou tou staurou kremasthenta apothanein), which appears to transliterate as "and straightaway orders from that of the pole [Haman] having been hanged to have died." This could be interpreted as "and straightaway orders him [Haman] hanged on that there pole to die", or "and straightaway orders him [Haman] hanged in consequence of the pole to die" [50] So we see here that Josephus may be reading whatever the Romans did into an event about 500 years into his past, or he could be interpreting it as a hanging from the pole, like from a gallows. But it also appears that impaling the criminal on a stake while hanging him from a lifting beam seems a possibility in Josephus' interpretation of the passage that he would have read out of the Tanakh while in the Temple and in Synagogue or during his private studies.

Lucian of Antioch (d. 312 CE, a Martyr for the Church) had produced a critical reclension of the Septuagint, Text "A" which contains additional verses in Esther chapter 7. 7:14 reads, καθότι ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκεκρικει ἀνασκολοπισαι αὐτόν (kathoti ekeinê tê êmera ekekrikei anaskolopisai auton) "Just like in that day he [Haman] had decided to impale him". [51]

B.2.6 Aftermath.

In Esther 8:7 this King Ahasuerus reports to Esther and Mordechai that "I have given Haman's property to Esther and he has been impaled for scheming against the Jews". [52] The Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Latin Vulgate have, respectively, תלו על העץ (tā·lū 'al- hā·‘êṣ) "have hanged upon an 'etz (tree, stake)" [53], ἐκρέμασα ἐπὶ ξύλου "I have hanged upon a tree / stake" [54], and iussi adfigi cruci "I ordered affixed to a crux (nailed to a cross / impaled upon a stake)". [55]

And Haman's plot is completely foiled, for King Ahasuerus issues an edict permitting the Jews to defend themselves and forbidding any attempt to prevent them from defending themselves. The outcome according to the book of Esther is predictable. In Esther 9:8-12 it is reported to the King that 500 people were killed in inter-ethnic violence, including the ten sons of Haman. The King asks esther what she wants done with the corpses. To which she replied,

13 "If it please Your majesty,... let the Jews in Shushan be permitted to act tomorrow as they did today, and let Haman's ten sons be impaled on the stake." 14 The King ordered that this should be done, and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan. Haman's ten sons were impaled.

The Tanakh, Esther 9:13, 14 [56]

For "be impaled on the stake" and "were impaled" we have in the Hebrew, יתלו על העץ (yiṯ·lū 'al- hā·‘êṣ) "be hanged upon a tree / stake" and תלו (tā·lū) "were hanged" [57], in the Septuagint, κρεμάσαι (kremasai) "to hang up" [58], in the Vulgate, in patibulis suspendatur "may be suspended on / by a fork-shaped gibbet / cross / lifting beam" and suspensi sunt "were suspended" [59]. Again, it is only the Latin Vulgate where crucifixion imagery was expressly implied, even though an alternative interpretation is possible, according to the above images.

The Targumin of Esther (dated 500 to 1000 CE)shed some additional light on this. The Targum Rishon (Tg. Esther I 9:13) has יזדקפוז על קיסא (izdekfose 'al- qisa) "let them be impaled / lifted up on the tree / rough edge" [60] where יזדקפוז (izdeqafon)(?) is a conjugate the verb זְקַף (zeqaph) [6][10] and קיסא (qisa) is a "tree, rough edge". If you recall from above, זְקַף (zeqaph) is related to the ancient Assyrian words zaqapu and zaqipu, which includs the impaling of a person in their more basic meanings of erecting, planting, or lifting up any person or thing. Words adjacent to קיסא (qisa) in Jastrow's Dictionary strongly suggests the existence of a rough edge is implied in the "tree" [61]. Targum Sheni (Tg. Esther II 9:13) [60] has יתליו על צליבא (yi-tal-iuv 'al tzaliba) "let them hang upon the stake" [62].

The Additions to the book of Esther E18 (16:18) has this included: "For he was the worker of these things, is hanged at the Gates of Susa with all his family: God, who ruleth all things, speedily rendering vengeance to him according to his desserts." Here, a conjugate of  ἀνασταυρόω (anastauroô) is used: ἐσταυρῶσθαι (estaurôsthai) (perfect indicative middle / passive) "is impaled".

B.2.7 Recap.

There is a recap at the end of chapter 9:

But when she {Esther} came before the King, he commanded, "With the promulgation of this decree, let the evil plot, which he [Haman] devised against the Jews, recoil upon his own head!" So they impaled him and his sons on the stake.

The Tanakh, Esther 9:25 [56]

For the sentence, "So they impaled Haman and his sons on the stake, we have in the Hebrew: ותלו אתו ואת בניו על העץ׃ (wə·ṯā·lū ’ō·ṯōw wə·’êṯ bā·nāw ‘al- hā·‘êṣ) "they hanged that one and the sons upon the stake" [63]. The Septuagint has, καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ (kai ekremasthê autos kai ta tekna autou) "and he was hanged, and also his offspring" [64]. And the Latin Vulgate, et ipsum et filios eius adfixerunt cruci "and he himself and his sons were affixed to a crux" (nailed to a cross or impaled on a stake) [65].

B.2.8 Rabbinical Writings.

A caution concerning Josephus and Jerome: the two could have been projecting Roman executionary practices back into Persian times, although whether Josephus actualized of the more ancient Persisn practice as Roman crucifixion practices is, in my opinion, unknown and chancy, because there are places where one cannot avoid faithfully reconstructing his sentences in translation without comnig off with a sense that he was speaking of impalement and not crucifixion (See Parts 13A and 13B). With Jerome on the other hand, it's almost a sure thing. However, there are later Rabbinical writings that do assume Roman crucifixion methods. For example, in Esther Rab. x.5, we find Haman moaning to Mordechai,

"Stand and dress. last night I was working to prepare for him [sic!] the cross [צליבא], but the Holy One was preparing for him the crown. I was preparing for you ropes and nails [חבלים ומסמרים], but the Holy One was preparing for you the clothing of kings. I, when [I was just about to be] asking the King to crucify you on the cross [למיצליב יתד על צליבא = nail-'impale' on a 'stake' = nail-crucify on a cross], he rarther said to me to give you a ride on the horse. Stand and dress." [66][67] 

As hanging by the neck with rope from a gallows replaced other forms of penal bodily suspension (and perhaps before), the Rabbis reinterpreted this to mean the nails were used to build the gallows and of course, Mordechai was intended to hang by the noose until dead. [66] This is similar to later Rabbinis interpretations of the Lament: "And young lads staggered over the wood", Rabbi Joshua b. Levi said. "They found three hundred strung up in one hanging". How they were allegedly strung up, Rabbi b. Levi doesn't say. [68]

B.2.9. Conclusions.

In the above exposition and explication of the Hebrew literature concerning Persian penal bodily suspension practices, I have endeavoured to show you that the type they practiced was probably a sort of impalement: sometimes a pre-impaling and a lifting up, other times a lifting up by a carrying beam. The latter would c=ertainly be required to lift someone to park him on top of an impaling stake of an insane height. The Romans, of course, would have called the beam a patibulum, and the stake, a crux. Because the person so suspended was killed by means of torture. Yet prior to Chapman and his conclusions in favor of impalement [69], most scholars assumed that the Persians crucified people, giving the false impression, despite disclaimers to the contrary, that they nailed people onto crosses, or tropaeums. The Persians never nailed people to tropaeums or any other kinds of crosses as far as we can tell; Gunnar Samuelsson has totally debunked this!

C. Footnotes.

[1] Bible.cc, Ezra 6 New International Version
[2] Bible.cc, Ezra 6:11, parallel versions and commentary.
[3] Mechom-Mamre.org, The Tanakh, Ezra 6, JPS 1917 Edition
[4] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Ezra 6, JPS 1985 Edition
[5] Biblos.com, Ezra 6:11 Hebrew
[6] Concordances.org, Strong's H-2211 זְקַף (zeqaph), "raise, lift up, set up, to hang, i.e., impale, (Aramaic) corresponding to zaqaph"; Strong's H-4223 מְחָא (mecha) "strike, smite, nail, impale, hang, arrest, ward off, stay, (Aramaic) corresponding to macha"; Strong's H-5922 עַל (al) "upon, over, above, about, around, against, on account of, (Aramaic) corresponding to al".
[7] David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, Grand Rapids, Mich., baker Academic, Baker Publishing Group (2008), pp. 26-27, 170-172. Note especially footnotes 106, 107 and 109.
[8] Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, quoted in Bible.cc, Ezra 6:11, parallel versions and commentary.
[9] This double entendre is reflected in the parallel between criminals baking in the sun, impaled on stakes, and fish roasted over a fire, skewered on spits, noted by Hesychius of Alexandria (5th C. CE) and translated by Julius Lipsius (1547-1606). Here is Hesychius' explication:

ἀνασκινδυλεὐωθαι: ἀνασκολοπισθῆναι.*

σκόλοψιν, ὧς ὄπτησιν τό γάρ παλαιόν τἀς κακοργο̂ντας ἀνεσκολόπιζον, όξυνοντες ξύλον διά ῥάκεως καί τό νώτε, καθάπερ τάς ὀπτωμένες ἰχθῦς ἐπί ὀβελίσκων.**

Hesychius of Alexandria, Etymology 100,51
(also  Google Book Preview, Lexicon, Vol. III, p.312, entriy 1071 and 1072)

* To be split apart on an impale: to have been impaled.

** Thus on stakes one would bake [in the sun] for in the ancient time they would impale into malefactors, a stake through the middle and the back, just as those fish [that are] roasted on spits.

This is my translation using Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, the Perseus Digital Library LSJ Lexicon and the Institute of Biblical Greek Verb Chart.

This is Julius Lipsius' Latin Translation:

Sudfixionem dixeris, quasi Assationem. Nam antiquitus maleficas sudi infigebant, acuto ligno penetrantes spinam et dorsum, sicuti assos in verubus pisces.

Julius Lipsius, de Cruce, L.I, cap.vi, p.11.

And here is my translation of Lipsius' text using Perseus Latin Word Study Tool:

"You may have said, a piercing underneath, like a planting-in. For in the ancient fashion they thrust criminals onto a stake, with a sharpened timber having penetrated the spine and the back just like fishes roasted on spits.

Note Julius Lipsius (de Cruce, L.I, cap.vi, p.12) also translated the Greek ἀνασκινδυλεὐωθαι as cruce diffindetur "he will be split apart with a crux (impaling stake)" Cf. LSJ diffindo, "cleave asunder"

[10] Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of Targumin, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons (1926), pp. 409-410, entry זְקַף, Cf. I Chr. 10:10 "and hung up / fastened his head in the Temple of Dagon" (The 1985 JPS Tanakh has it, "and impaled his head in the temple of Dagon".
[11] Biblos.com, Ezra 6, Septuagint. The whole of the Greek verse 11 is as follows:

καὶ ἀπ' ἐμοῦ ἐτέθη γνώμη ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἀλλάξει τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο καθαιρεθήσεται ξύλον ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ὠρθωμένος παγήσεται ἐπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ οἶκος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατ' ἐμὲ ποιηθήσεται

[12] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ὠρθωμένος (ôrthômenos), singular perfect stem middle-passive masculine nominative verb-participle of ὀρθόω (orthoô), "set straight or upright, set up, raise up". Cf. Institute of Biblical Greek Verb Chart.
[13] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, παγήσεται (pagêsetai), 3rd person singular future indicative passive verb conjugate of πήγνυμι (pêgnumi), "make fast, stick or fix in, pitch [tents], stick or fix on, impale, fasten together, make solid, stiff, hard, fix or establish irrevocably".
[14] Scripturetext.com, Ezra 6:11 Latin Vulgate. The whole Latin text is as follows:

a me ergo positum est decretum ut omnis homo qui hanc mutaverit iussionem tollatur lignum de domo ipsius et erigatur et configatur in eo domus autem eius publicetur

[14] Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, et erigatur et configatur in eo:

• et, conjunction, "and"
• erigatur, 3rd person singular present subjunctive passive verb conjugate of erigo, "raise up, lift up, erect, elevate"
• configatur, 3rd person singular present subjunctive passive verb conjugate of configo, "lit.: join (by pressing), fasten together, pierce through, transfix; trop.: rendered powerless or inactive"
• in, preposition (c. abl), in, on (with ablative nouns or pronouns an instrumental ablative is sometimes constructed, i.e., in "in, on" becomes "by, with, under the power of, etc., example in hoc signo vinces "with this sign you will connquer")
• eo, pronoun singular masculine or neuter ablative, "he, it, the one mentioned".

[15] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus, Antiquities 11.1.3. The Greek text of the end of line 17 is as follows:

τοὺς δὲ παρακούσαντας τούτων καὶ ἀκυρώσαντας ἀνασταυρωθῆναι βούλομαι καὶ τὰς οὐσίας αὐτῶν εἶναι βασιλικάς.

[16] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus, Antiquities 11.4.6. The Greek text of the first sentence of line 103 is as follows:

τοὺς δὲ παραβάντας τι τῶν ἐπεσταλμένων συλληφθέντας ἐκέλευσεν ἀνασταυρωθῆναικαὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν βασιλικὴν καταταγῆναι κτῆσιν

[17] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἀνασταυρωθῆναι (anastaurôthênai), aorist infinitive passive conjugation of the verb ἀνασταυρόω (anastauroô), "impale". Only in the times of Roman expansion can people be confident that the verb came to mean "crucify", and even then it didn't mean "crucify" in the sense of "nail to a tropaeum".
[18] Chapman, p. 171.
[19] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus Antiquities 11,6,4 = 11,207-8a. The Greek text reads as follows:

[207] Χρόνῳ δ᾽ ὕστερον ἐπιβουλευσάντων τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαγαθώου καὶ Θεοδοσίτου Βαρνάβαζος τῶν εὐνούχων οἰκέτης τοῦ ἑτέρου τὸγένος ὢν Ἰουδαῖος συνεὶς τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν τῷ θείῳ κατεμήνυσε τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ βασιλέως, Μαρδοχαῖος δὲ διὰ τῆς Ἐσθήρας φανεροὺς ἐποίησε τῷ βασιλεῖ τοὺς ἐπιβουλεύοντας. [208]ταραχθεὶς δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τἀληθὲς ἐξεῦρεν καὶ τοὺς μὲν εὐνούχους ἀνεσταύρωσεν, τῷ δὲ Μαρδοχαίῳτότε μὲν οὐδὲν παρέσχεν ὡς αἰτίῳ τῆς σωτηρίας γεγονότι,

[20] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἀνεσταύρωσεν (anestaurôsen), 3rd person singular aorist indicative active of ἀνασταυρόω (anastauroô), "impale", and in Roman times, "crucify".
[21] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 2, 1985 JPS Edition.
[22] Biblos.com, Esther 2:23, Hebrew Bible. The following is the full Hebrew text:

ויבקש הדבר וימצא ויתלו שניהם על עץ ויכתב בספר דברי הימים לפני המלך׃

[23] Concordances.org, Strong's H-8518 תָּלָה (talah), "hang, suspend"; Strong's H-5921 עַל ('al-), "upon, above, over, etc."; and Strong's H-6086 עֵץ ('etz), "tree, stake, gallows" (cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 1101, עֵץ "tree, pole, wood").
[23a] Chapman, p. 167.
[24] Chapman, p. 163. Chapman also states that the language of the text (whole book of Esther) is flexible enough to permit hanging by the neck, crucifixion, and impalement.
[25] Biblos.com, Esther 2, Septuagint. The Greek text reads as follows:

ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἤτασεν τοὺς δύο εὐνούχους καὶ ἐκρέμασεν αὐτούς καὶ προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καταχωρίσαι εἰς μνημόσυνον ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐνοίας μαρδοχαίου ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ

[26] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἐκρέμασεν (ekremasen); .3rd person singular aorist indicative active of the verb κρεμάννυμι (kremannumi), "to hang, hang up" (by any means including crucifixion and impalement).
[27] Perseus Digital Library, Esther 2:23, Latin Vulgate. The Latin reads as follows:

quaesitum est et inventum et adpensus uterque eorum in patibulo mandatumque historiis et annalibus traditum coram rege

[28] Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, adpensus, verb participle singular perfect passive masculine nominative of appendo, "hang [something] upon [something], suspend on, weigh"; uterque, adjective singular masculine nominative w/ encyclic "and one or the other" (although here it implies both); eorum pronoun plural masculine genitive "of them"; in, preposition c. w/ ablative "in, on"; patibulo, noun singular neuter ablative, "fork shaped gibbet, overhead beam, crossarm" (Note: in + ablative is locational or instrumental ablative, sometimes both).
[29] Tagged Eanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 5.
[30] Biblos.com, Esther 5:14, Hebrew Bible. The Herbrew is as follows:

ותאמר לו זרש אשתו וכל אהביו יעשו עץ גבה חמשים אמה ובבקר אמר למלך ויתלו את מרדכי עליו ובא עם המלך אל המשתה שמח וייטב הדבר לפני המן ויעש העץ׃

[31] Concordances.org, Strong's H-6213, עָשָׂה ('ashah) "make, do"; and Strong's H-6086 עֵץ ('etz), "tree, stake, gallows".
[32] Concordances.org, Strong's H-8518, תָּלָה (talah) "hang"; Strong's H-853 אֶֽת־ ('et) mark of the accusative; Strong's H-4782 מָרְדֳּכַי (Mordekay) "Mordechai"; Strong's H-5921 עַל ('al) "upon, above, over".

[33] Biblos.com, Esther 5, Septuagint. The Greek of verse 14 is as follows:

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ζωσαρα ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ φίλοι κοπήτω σοι ξύλον πηχῶν πεντήκοντα ὄρθρου δὲ εἰπὸν τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ κρεμασθήτω μαρδοχαῖος ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου σὺ δὲ εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν δοχὴν σὺν τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ εὐφραίνου καὶ ἤρεσεν τὸ ῥῆμα τῷ αμαν καὶ ἡτοιμάσθη τὸ ξύλον

[34] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, κοπήτω (kopêtô) 3rd person present imperative active of the verb  κοπή (kopê), "strike, smite, knock down, cut off, chop off, cut down, fell (tres), lay waste, cut small, chop up, pound"; σοι (soi) pronoun 2nd person singular dative, "for you"; ξύλον (xulon) noun singular neuter nominative, "a tree, stake, gallows, etc."
[35] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, καὶ (kai) conjunction, "and indeed"; κρεμασθήτω 3rd person singular aorist imperative passive of the verb κρεμάννυμι (kremannumi), "hang, hang up"; μαρδοχαῖος (mardochaios) "Mordechai"; ἐπὶ (epi) preposition c. gen "upon"; τοῦ (tou) article singular masculine genetive "the"; ξύλου (culou) noun singular neuter genitive (tree, wood, impale stake, gallows)
[36] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἡτοιμάσθη (ptoimasê) 3rd person singular aorist indicative passive, "should be made ready, prepared" τὸ (to) article singular neuter accusative "the"; ξύλον (culon) noun singular neuter accusative "tree, stake, gallows, etc."
[37] Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, iube, 2nd person singular present indicative active of jubeo, "impose, order, bid, tell, command, wish, desire, entreat, bid, drecree, ratify, approve, designate, appoint, assign, prescribe"; parari, present infinitive passive of the verb paro, "to make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order, contrive, design"; excelsam, verb participle singular perfect passive feminine accusative of excello, "be eminent, be superior, surpass, excel, raise, elevate, be high, be lofty"; trabem, noun singular feminine accusative, "beam, timber, tree, anything made of beams or timbers (like a spar or a stake)"
[38]  Perseus Latin Word Study Tool  ut, conjunction, "so that, that, so as, etc."; adpendatur, 3rd person singular present subjunctive passive of the verb appendo, "to weigh out, hang something upon something, suspend upon, weigh something to one (or vice versa), to weigh"; super, preposition, "above, over, on top, thereupon, upon, on, etc."; eam, pron sg fem acc, "he, she, it, the one mentioned"; Mardocheus, proper noun singular masculine nominative, "Mordechai".
[39] Perseus Latin Word Study Tool  iussit, 3rd person singular perfect indicative active of jubeo, "order"; excelsam, "raised, elevated"; parari, "to be provided"; crucem,  noun singular masculine or feminine, accusative of crux, "gallows, frame, tree on which criminals were impaled or hanged (impaling stake here)".
[40] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus Antiquities 11,6,10. The Greek text of line 246 into line 247 reads as follows:

246 ἔλεγέν τε μὴ ἀρέσκεσθαι Μαρδοχαῖον ὁρῶντα ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τὸν Ἰουδαῖον. τῆς δὲ γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Γαζάσης εἰπούσης κελεῦσαι ξύλον κοπῆναι πηχῶν ἑξήκοντα καὶ πρωὶ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως αἰτησάμενονἀνασταυρῶσαι τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον, ἐπαινέσας τὴν γνώμην προσέταξεντοῖς οἰκέταις ξύλον ἑτοιμασαμένους στῆσαι τοῦτο ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ πρὸς τιμωρίαν Μαρδοχαίῳ. 247 καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἦν ἕτοιμον

[41] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἑξήκοντα (exekonta), "sixty" and πηχῶν (pêchôn) "cubits".
[42] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 6.
[43] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus Antiquities 11.6.11. The Greek text of lines 260 and 261 is as follows:

260 Ταῦτα δὲ τούτων ἔτι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλούντων ἧκον οἱ τῆς Ἐσθήρας εὐνοῦχοι τὸν Ἀμάνην ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐπισπεύδοντες. 261 Σαβουχάδας δὲ τῶν εὐνούχων εἷς ἰδὼν τὸν σταυρὸν ἐν τῇ Ἀμάν ουοἰκίᾳ πεπηγότα, ὃν ἐπὶ Μαρδοχαῖον παρεσκευάκεισαν, καὶ πυθόμενοςπαρά τινος τῶν οἰκετῶν, ἐπὶ τίνα τοῦτον ἦσαν ἑτοιμασάμενοι, γνούς, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς βασιλίσσης θεῖον, τὸν γὰρ Ἀμάνην μέλλειν αὐτὸν αἰτεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως πρὸς τιμωρίαν, τότε μὲν ἡσυχίανἦγεν.

[43a] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, πεπηγότα (pepêgota), verb participle singular perfect masculine accusative of πήγνυμι (pêgnumi), "planted firmly, fixed in the earth; constructed, built".
[44] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 7.

[45] Biblos.com, Esther 7:9 and 7:10, Hebrew.  The Hebrew text is as follows:

ויאמר חרבונה אחד מן הסריסים לפני המלך גם הנה העץ אשר עשה המן למרדכי אשר דבר טוב על המלך עמד בבית המן גבה חמשים אמה ויאמר המלך תלהו עליו׃
ויתלו את המן על העץ אשר הכין למרדכי וחמת המלך שככה׃

[46] Biblos.com, Septuagint, Esther 7. The Greek of verses 6 and 7 are as follows:

9 εἶπεν δὲ βουγαθαν εἷς τῶν εὐνούχων πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα ἰδοὺ καὶ ξύλον ἡτοίμασεν αμαν μαρδοχαίῳ τῷ λαλήσαντι περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ὤρθωται ἐν τοῖς αμαν ξύλον πηχῶν πεντήκοντα εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς σταυρωθήτω ἐπ' αὐτοῦ 10 καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη αμαν ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου ὃ ἡτοίμασεν μαρδοχαίῳ καὶ τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκόπασεν τοῦ θυμοῦ

[47] Perseus Word Study Tool, σταυρωθήτω (staurôthêtô) 3rd person singular aorist imperative passive of the verb σταυρόω (stauroô), "fence with pales". Estimated to be written in the late 2nd to early 1st century CE, the Septuagint edition of Esther and the additions thereto, fall between the previous and next extant utilisation of the verb σταυρόω (stauroô).

• The previous: Polybius (200-118 BCE) Histories 1.86.4-6 (Greek) (English): μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα προσαγαγόντες πρὸς τὰ τείχη τοὺς περὶ τὸν Σπένδιον αἰχμαλώτους ἐσταύρωσαν ἐπιφανῶς. "When this was done they [Carthaginian troops under Hannibal] brought the captives taken from the army of Spendius and crucified [paled] them in the sight of the enemy." The event took place 238 BCE, I doubt the Carthaginians nailed Spendius to a cross. The more likely type of 'crucifixion' was a 'plie-driving', i.e., impaling. As far as I know, the extant text prior Polybius we have the verb in is Thucydides (460-395 BCE) The Peloponnesian War 7.25 (English)(Greek) where the Syracusians and Athenians were having it out at Meagra (or Plemmyrium) Harbor where in line 7, the Syracusans drove piles, the verb conjugate is ἐσταύρωσαν (estaurôsan): δ᾽ αὖθις οἱ Συρακόσιοι ἐσταύρωσαν "although the Syracusians drove in others" meaning other pilings - σταυροῦν  (stauroun). (Yes, i know the accusative plural doesn't appear there, but I showed it here anyway.)  

• The next: Diodorus Siculus (70-20 BCE) Library of History, 16.61.2 (Greek)(English) Ὀνόμαρχος διαδεξάμενος τὴν τῶν ἀπονοηθέντων στρατηγίαν μετὰ τῶνσυμπαραταξαμένων ἐν Θετταλίᾳ Φωκέων καὶ μισθοφόρων κατακοπεὶς ἐσταυρώθη. "Onomarchus, after taking over the command of his people, now become desperate, was cut to pieces in a battle in Thessaly, along with the Phocians and mercenaries of his command, and crucified [paled]." Event is 352 BCE, earlier than that of Spendius being supposedly 'nailed to a cross'. Further, it is impossible to nail a dismembered body to a cross. The obvious post-dismemberment suspension of a body would be impaling. For indeed, in Library 24.1 (English)(Greek) we have a scene where Romans blocked the channels to Lilybaeum Harbor (241 BCE), the verb conjugate utilised for "blocked" is ἐσταύρωσαν (estaurôsan): καί ξύλοις μεγίστοις καί ἀγκύραις τὰ βάθη ἐσταύρωσαν "they blocked the channels with huge timbers and anchors".

[48] Scripturetext.com, Latin Vulgate, Esther 7. The Latin of verses 9 and 10 read as follows:

9 dixitque Arbona unus de eunuchis qui stabant in ministerio regis en lignum quod paraverat Mardocheo qui locutus est pro rege stat in domo Aman habens altitudinis quinquaginta cubitos cui dixit rex adpendite eum in eo 10 suspensus est itaque Aman in patibulo quod paraverat Mardocheo et regis ira quievit

[49] Perseus Digital Library, Josephus Antiquities 11,6,11. The Greek text of the bulk of line 266 and line 167 is as follows:

266 καὶ Σαβουζάνης ὁ εὐνοῦχος παρελθὼν κατηγόρει τοῦ Ἀμάνου, ὡς εὕροι σταυρὸν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίαςαὐτοῦ παρεσκευασμένον ἐπὶ Μαρδοχαῖον τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτῷ πυνθανομένῳτὸν οἰκέτην εἰπεῖν, ὅτε καλέσων αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἔλθοι πρὸς αὐτόν. εἶναι δὲ τὸν σταυρὸν ἔλεγεν ἑξήκοντα πήχεων τὸ ὕψος. 267 ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀκούσας οὐκ ἄλλῃ τιμωρίᾳ περιβάλλειν ἔκρινεν τὸν Ἀμάνην ἢ τῇ κατὰ Μαρδοχαίου νενοημένῃ, καὶ κελεύει παραχρῆμα αὐτὸν ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ σταυροῦ κρεμασθέντα ἀποθανεῖν.

[50] Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: καὶ (kai), conjunction, "and"; κελεύει (keleuei), verb 3rd person singular present indicative active, "orders"; παραχρῆμα (parachrêma), adverb, "straightaway"; αὐτὸν (auton), adj singular masculine accusative, "him"; ἐξ (eks), preposition, "from = on*"; ἐκείνου (ekeinou), adjective singular masculine genitive, "the one there, that one**"; τοῦ (tou), article singular masculine genetive, "the"; σταυροῦ (staurou), article singular masculine genetive, "pole, pale, cross" κρεμασθέντα (kremasthenta), participle singular aorist passive masculine accusative of the verb κρεμάννυμι, "hanged";

ἀποθανεῖν (apothanein), verb aortive infinitive passive, "to be killed".

* The LSJ, Middle Liddell and Autenrieth lexica note that with verbs of rest implying previous motion, ἐξ is to be interpreted as in, or on, of, upon, over, or from. With hanging, the interpretation appears to be "on," like hanging a lyre on a peg.
** Whiston interprets the phrase ἐξ ἐκείνου (ek ekeinou) as the adverbial "after that manner", except according to the LSJ and Middle Liddell lexica, the feminine dative form  ἐκείνῃ (ekeinê) is used to denote "in that manner". The phrase ἐξ ἐκείνου (ek ekeinou) can also be interpreted as "from that time" or "in consequence" as in Xenophon, Agesilaus 1,17, except it is immediately followed by τοῦ σταυροῦ in Josephus and Xenophon does not have an indirect object following the phrase. Which is why I believe ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ σταυροῦ (eks ekeinou tou staurou) should could be translated as "on that pale there." Also valid is "in consequence of the pole" that Haman planted. 

[51] Chapman, p. 165. Chapman cites this as an example of crucifixion imagery. Yet anyone familiar with the writings of Seneca Minor knows that the Romans ~ or at least Barbarians round about ~ also crucified by simple direct impalement (Dialogus 6 (de Consolatione), 20, 3).
[52] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 8.
[53] Biblos.com, Esther 8:7, Hebrew. The full text of verse 7 is as follows:

ויאמר המלך אחשורש לאסתר המלכה ולמרדכי היהודי הנה בית המן נתתי לאסתר ואתו תלו על העץ על אשר שלח ידו ביהודיים׃

[54] Biblos.com, Septuagint, Esther 8. The Greek text of verse 7 reads:

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς εσθηρ εἰ πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αμαν ἔδωκα καὶ ἐχαρισάμην σοι καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκρέμασα ἐπὶ ξύλου ὅτι τὰς χεῖρας ἐπήνεγκε τοῖς ιουδαίοις τί ἔτι ἐπιζητεῖς

[55] Scripturetext.com, Latin Vulgate, Esther 8. The Latin of verse 7 reads as follows:

responditque rex Asuerus Hester reginae et Mardocheo Iudaeo domum Aman concessi Hester et ipsum iussi adfigi cruci qui ausus est manum in Iudaeos mittere

[56] Tagged Tanakh.org, The Tanakh, Esther 9.
[57] Biblos.com, Esther 9:13 and 9:14, Hebrew. The lines are as follows:

ותאמר אסתר אם על המלך טוב ינתן גם מחר ליהודים אשר בשושן לעשות כדת היום ואת עשרת בני המן יתלו על העץ׃ויאמר המלך להעשות כן ותנתן דת בשושן ואת עשרת בני המן תלו׃

[58] Biblos.com, Septuagint, Esther 9. The Greek of verses 13 and 14 read:

13 καὶ εἶπεν εσθηρ τῷ βασιλεῖ δοθήτω τοῖς ιουδαίοις χρῆσθαι ὡσαύτως τὴν αὔριον ὥστε τοὺς δέκα υἱοὺς κρεμάσαι αμαν 14 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν οὕτως γενέσθαι καὶ ἐξέθηκε τοῖς ιουδαίοις τῆς πόλεως τὰ σώματα τῶν υἱῶν αμαν κρεμάσαι

[59] Scripturetext.com, Latin Vulgate, Esther 9. The Latin of verses 13 and 14 read as follows:

13 cui illa respondit si regi placet detur potestas Iudaeis ut sicut hodie fecerunt in Susis sic et cras faciant et decem filii Aman in patibulis suspendantur 14 praecepitque rex ut ita fieret statimque in Susis pependit edictum et decem Aman filii suspensi sunt 

[60] Chapman, p. 167
[61] Jastrow, p. 1364, entry קיסא (qisa) "rough edge; twig, chip, wood; tree; gallows".
[62] Jastrow, p. 1282, entries  צלב (tzaluv) "to hang, impale", from which is derived the noun צליבא (tzaliba). The same noun צליבא is used to denote Haman's infamous stake in Tg. Esther II 7:10.
[63] Biblos.com, Esther 9:25, Hebrew. The Hebrew reads as follows:

ובבאה לפני המלך אמר עם הספר ישוב מחשבתו הרעה אשר חשב על היהודים על ראשו ותלו אתו ואת בניו על העץ׃

[64] Biblos.com, Septuagint, Esther 9. The Greek of verse 25 is as follows:

καὶ ὡς εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα λέγων κρεμάσαι τὸν μαρδοχαῖον ὅσα δὲ ἐπεχείρησεν ἐπάξαι ἐπὶ τοὺς ιουδαίους κακά ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἐγένοντο καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ

Which translates, "And as he went in to the King, asking to hang up Mordechai, but how great (a thing) he put his hand to bring upon the Jews the wickedness became reversed upon him and he was hanged, and also his offspring."

[65] Scripturetext.com, Latin Vulgate, Esther 9. The Latin of verse 25 is as follows:

et postea ingressa est Hester ad regem obsecrans ut conatus eius litteris regis irriti fierent et malum quod contra Iudaeos cogitaverat reverteretur in caput eius denique et ipsum et filios eius adfixerunt cruci 

[66] Chapman, p. 169
[67] Jastrow, p. 603, entry יתד (yi-ted)
[68] Chapman, p. 161
[69] Chapman, p. 163

=========================================================
Next: I will have something for Mr. Stephen E. Jones who writes "Jesus is Jehovah!" and who thinks Pontius Pilate had Jesus nailed on a tropaeum, known to us as a two-beam cross.

Gods and Goddesses willing, especially Lady Luck, the Goddess of Random chance.